Author Topic: New World Order - What Does It Mean?  (Read 32356 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Cardinal

  • < Moderator >
  • *
  • Posts: 8429
  • Gender: Female
Re: New World Order - What Does It Mean?
« Reply #125 on: April 03, 2009, 01:54:26 AM »
 :cloud9: Well, I say good for the Australians. If they want to live under Islamic law they have a wide variety of countries they can choose from to do just that. France is ruing the day they thought it was a good idea to let them in large numbers, as they have one and only one agenda. They are predicted to be the ruling majority in only 40 years at present rates of growth. Norway is also falling under their weight as we speak.

I feel sympathy and compassion for the people in that abomination, but don't feel that anyone should close their eyes and pretend it's all going to be alright if they continue in that abomination. Blessings...
"I would rather train twenty men to pray, than a thousand to preach; A minister's highest mission ought to be to teach his people to pray." -H. MacGregor

Offline jabcat

  • Admin
  • *
  • Posts: 9040
  • SINNER SAVED BY GRACE
Re: New World Order - What Does It Mean?
« Reply #126 on: April 03, 2009, 02:15:39 AM »
 :thumbsup: Card.

God has gently been impressing upon me since posting the J. Preston Eby article last night, that as someone else earlier said, being in the ark of protection is being in Jesus...and to be in Him is actually pretty simple.  Those who believe on Him/trust in Him to be their righteousness...scripture says "call upon the name of the Lord, and you shall be saved...believe upon Him, and you and your household shall be saved"...He has gently assured me that included my family, as thanks be to God, we are in Him, by trusting in His work...HE assures protection and overcoming...Looking to Him, the Author and Finisher of our salvation...in these troubled times and as He brings His own out the other side of this, we may begin to realize even more fully what His salvation brings.  Praise Yesu.
Neither should there be vulgar speech, foolish talk, or coarse jesting--all of which are out of character--but rather thanksgiving.  Eph. 5:4  **  Saved 1John 3.2, Eph. 2:8, John 1:12 - Being saved 2Cor. 4:16 2Peter 3:18 - Will be saved 1Peter 1:5 Romans 8:23

IceDash

  • Guest
Re: New World Order - What Does It Mean?
« Reply #127 on: April 03, 2009, 02:18:29 AM »
:thumbsup: Card.

God has gently been impressing upon me since posting the J. Preston Eby article last night, that as someone else earlier said, being in the ark of protection is being in Jesus...and to be in Him is actually pretty simple.  Those who believe on Him/trust in Him to be their righteousness...scripture says "call upon the name of the Lord, and you shall be saved...believe upon Him, and you and your household shall be saved"...He has gently assured me that included my family, as thanks be to God, we are in Him, by trusting in His work...HE assures protection and overcoming...Looking to Him, the Author and Finisher of our salvation...in these troubled times and as He brings His own out the other side of this, we may begin to realize even more fully what His salvation brings.  Praise Yesu.


umm maybe jesus isn't taking about your family because the word "household" maybea nother word for body parts.

Offline jabcat

  • Admin
  • *
  • Posts: 9040
  • SINNER SAVED BY GRACE
Re: New World Order - What Does It Mean?
« Reply #128 on: April 03, 2009, 02:19:25 AM »
My household has each individually trusted in Jesus as Savior, thanks be to God for revealing Himself to them, giving to them His faith to believe.  So He has done exactly what that scripture says wrt the household.  Not saying there aren't layers of meaning(s).
« Last Edit: April 03, 2009, 02:25:08 AM by jabcat »
Neither should there be vulgar speech, foolish talk, or coarse jesting--all of which are out of character--but rather thanksgiving.  Eph. 5:4  **  Saved 1John 3.2, Eph. 2:8, John 1:12 - Being saved 2Cor. 4:16 2Peter 3:18 - Will be saved 1Peter 1:5 Romans 8:23

Offline jabcat

  • Admin
  • *
  • Posts: 9040
  • SINNER SAVED BY GRACE
Re: New World Order - What Does It Mean?
« Reply #129 on: April 03, 2009, 02:20:59 AM »
Paul also talks about a believing spouse sanctifying the unbelieving, "else your children would be unclean".  Again, not saying there aren't layers of meaning/understanding.
« Last Edit: April 03, 2009, 02:26:17 AM by jabcat »
Neither should there be vulgar speech, foolish talk, or coarse jesting--all of which are out of character--but rather thanksgiving.  Eph. 5:4  **  Saved 1John 3.2, Eph. 2:8, John 1:12 - Being saved 2Cor. 4:16 2Peter 3:18 - Will be saved 1Peter 1:5 Romans 8:23

Offline Redlettervoice

  • 500
  • *
  • Posts: 790
Re: New World Order - What Does It Mean?
« Reply #130 on: April 03, 2009, 02:48:24 AM »


Anne Hamon, I would never turn away from "you".........just because
I got weary listening to the news.  Forgive me if I offended you.
You sure misunderstood me dearheart!

Looks like a long conversation ensued following my post.  ha

Offline Raggedy Anne

  • 500
  • *
  • Posts: 726
  • Gender: Female
Re: New World Order - What Does It Mean?
« Reply #131 on: April 03, 2009, 03:00:27 AM »


Anne Hamon, I would never turn away from "you".........just because
I got weary listening to the news.  Forgive me if I offended you.
You sure misunderstood me dearheart!

Looks like a long conversation ensued following my post.  ha

Carlene -
My comment was not made toward you.  I know you wouldn't.  I think it was Martin who quoted a scripture (out of context, IMO) about turning away from certain people who believe in certain things.  I never for a moment thought you would.  I think there are some things you just can't discuss in a group.  Apparently this is one of them.
It has wandered a lot from my initial question about what people think the meaning of New World Order is.  I'm going to re -do Andrew's bedroom tonight - our whole family is going to work on it together :-)

love,
Anne
Ours is not to make up anybody's mind, but to open hearts.
You cannot plough a field by turning it over in your mind.

Offline Raggedy Anne

  • 500
  • *
  • Posts: 726
  • Gender: Female
Re: New World Order - What Does It Mean?
« Reply #132 on: April 03, 2009, 03:13:33 AM »
Quote
That's not really true.  It's a lot of rewriting of history that is not accurate by those who would like to convince us we never were a Christian nation to begin with, after all.  All the major colleges at that time, known by names such as Harvard College, etc, were theological seminaries.

Christianity is very threatening to those who would like to be god themselves.

Our nation was founded as a church relocation project--the Pilgrims.

Too bad they didn't treat the native American better for Christ's sake!   The Puritans burnt children and women suspected of witchcraft too.  Ah, the good ol' days of our forefathers!
Men came here from Europe to get away from King George and his power to tax them and be a type of dictator.

Anne
Ours is not to make up anybody's mind, but to open hearts.
You cannot plough a field by turning it over in your mind.

Offline sparrow

  • Bronze
  • *
  • Posts: 1830
  • I watch, & am as a sparrow alone upon the rooftop.
Re: New World Order - What Does It Mean?
« Reply #133 on: April 03, 2009, 04:33:43 AM »
Quote
That's not really true.  It's a lot of rewriting of history that is not accurate by those who would like to convince us we never were a Christian nation to begin with, after all.  All the major colleges at that time, known by names such as Harvard College, etc, were theological seminaries.

Christianity is very threatening to those who would like to be god themselves.

Our nation was founded as a church relocation project--the Pilgrims.

Too bad they didn't treat the native American better for Christ's sake!

For REAL!!!!!!
"I knelt to drink,
And knew that I was on the brink
Of endless joy. And everywhere
I turned I saw a wonder there."

If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give away all I have, and if I deliver up my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing.

Offline peacemaker

  • Bronze
  • *
  • Posts: 1043
Re: New World Order - What Does It Mean?
« Reply #134 on: April 03, 2009, 07:07:08 AM »
Political, Economical and Religious models patterned after ancient societies?

"Common sense died, but the majority did not attend the funeral."

peacemaker

Offline Molly

  • Gold
  • *
  • Posts: 11265
Re: New World Order - What Does It Mean?
« Reply #135 on: April 03, 2009, 08:02:43 AM »
Obama hails the new world order

Last night British ministers said the real significance of yesterday's agreement was not the $1trn package but the enhanced role it gave to world institutions like the IMF, whose budget will triple to $750bn. "A new world financial order has been born, almost by accident, because of this crisis," one cabinet minister said. "These bodies have been revamped; now they need to raise their game."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/obama-hails-the-new-world-order-1661088.html



A new world order created by accident! :mshock:

I hate when that happens!
« Last Edit: April 03, 2009, 08:04:14 AM by Molly »

Offline jabcat

  • Admin
  • *
  • Posts: 9040
  • SINNER SAVED BY GRACE
Re: New World Order - What Does It Mean?
« Reply #136 on: April 03, 2009, 08:22:00 AM »
the world stubbed its toe?  :laughing7:  Oh, OK.  Blind as bats...
Neither should there be vulgar speech, foolish talk, or coarse jesting--all of which are out of character--but rather thanksgiving.  Eph. 5:4  **  Saved 1John 3.2, Eph. 2:8, John 1:12 - Being saved 2Cor. 4:16 2Peter 3:18 - Will be saved 1Peter 1:5 Romans 8:23

martincisneros

  • Guest
Re: New World Order - What Does It Mean?
« Reply #137 on: April 03, 2009, 08:40:56 AM »
I personally think a New World Order can be a very positive thing, because for one thing, the Old World Order didn't amount to much.  I'm not saying that the ultimate and best won't come through Jesus Christ.  There's absolutely no questions in my mind about that.  But as a precursor to what the Body of Christ will do in this world when such a generation comes along that really wants to do all that Jesus said to do along those lines, it's a good John the Baptist about better days being down the road.  I can't get into gloom about progress for everyone, I'm sorry.  There's no question about the possibilities of deception in it if you get sidetracked from the Word of God, but that's been the same case with the Old World Order, so what's the difference? 

In the meantime, more mouths are fed, more diseases are tackled, and more acts of terrorism are squashed in the craddle.  Nobody with a sound mind that's come from the Scriptures and the Holy Spirit would imply that man's reattempts at Babel are the ultimate of God's intent for this world and for this life.  But while the Body of Christ is asleep at the wheel thinking that Christ is coming to deliver us from responsibility to our world, at least someone is doing something.  Things need to be done.  It's abundantly clear that the old order is on it's deathbed.  It is never God's will for the world to go to Hell.  Never.  That gets into this issue that many Universalists have an issue with anyway about the innocent suffering with/for/because of the wicked. 

Christ Jesus has already done all that would ever need to be done along those lines.  There is no virtue in a single instance of human suffering.  People can learn that way if they just won't learn any other way with the Scriptures, but it's the furthest from God's best.  God's best is for all of the lessons to come through the Written Word (Joshua 1:8; John 15:7) To me, this gets into the very argument that some people have tried to get into with me about God having created doctors.  Well, duh!  God created the nations according to Acts 17.  So, same exact logic!  It's the exact same thing.  You can't get away from it.  God doesn't damn man's attempts at making this a better world and that's what'll come out of this to a very, very limited degree until the Body of Christ finally gets it's rear in gear and takes this whole thing over!

Offline jabcat

  • Admin
  • *
  • Posts: 9040
  • SINNER SAVED BY GRACE
Re: New World Order - What Does It Mean?
« Reply #138 on: April 03, 2009, 08:52:08 AM »
Good points, Martin (not sure about the NWO one :happy3:...you may see it more clearly than I).  I DO BELIEVE God wins, the cross of Jesus is victorious.  We MAY be going into a deeper mess for awhile (to my eye it appears that way) but whatever happens, God's going to fix it, His judgments bring in righteousness, and the end of the Lord is full of mercy.  We don't have to live in fear...if God be for us, who can be against us?
« Last Edit: April 03, 2009, 08:54:57 AM by jabcat »
Neither should there be vulgar speech, foolish talk, or coarse jesting--all of which are out of character--but rather thanksgiving.  Eph. 5:4  **  Saved 1John 3.2, Eph. 2:8, John 1:12 - Being saved 2Cor. 4:16 2Peter 3:18 - Will be saved 1Peter 1:5 Romans 8:23

martincisneros

  • Guest
Re: New World Order - What Does It Mean?
« Reply #139 on: April 03, 2009, 08:52:17 AM »
And Raggedy Anne, I meant no personal attacks in anything that I've said.  I'm deeply sorry if anything that I've said has come across that way.  I've just become very passionate about reclaiming a world that even with my first few years in UR that I was way too ready to damn to Hell until Christ Jesus got in my face and changed my mind.

noname

  • Guest
Re: New World Order - What Does It Mean?
« Reply #140 on: April 03, 2009, 11:15:28 AM »
well done Molly! you tried... :thumbsup:

"ignorance is bliss" rockabye baby...

@Anne
get yourself and family to be as self-sustaining and interdependant of the "system" or "the grid" as soon as you can...Mystery Babylon is falling

Revelation 18:1-3 (New International Version)

 1After this I saw another angel coming down from heaven. He had great authority, and the earth was illuminated by his splendor. 2With a mighty voice he shouted:
   "Fallen! Fallen is Babylon the Great!
      She has become a home for demons
   and a haunt for every evil[a] spirit,
      a haunt for every unclean and detestable bird.
 3For all the nations have drunk
      the maddening wine of her adulteries.
   The kings of the earth committed adultery with her,
      and the merchants of the earth grew rich from her excessive luxuries."


Offline Molly

  • Gold
  • *
  • Posts: 11265
Re: New World Order - What Does It Mean?
« Reply #141 on: April 03, 2009, 04:19:16 PM »
The Dark Side of Globalization. The Vicious Cycle of Exploitation from World Market Integration: Lesson from the Congo
Abstract

The Congo region is one of the best examples of the negative consequences of world market integration (and hence globalization) in the world. Today's Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) is an almost "perfectly" failing state – although not necessarily with respect to a state's function as a revenue machine for its rulers, but definitely with respect to almost all other state functions, including the most basic ones, like security or infrastructure provision for its people. However, the recent civil war was only the tip of an iceberg of a well-established system of structural violence, which is neither simply a result of post-colonial nor colonial heritage. Remarkably stable, it dates back to the very beginning of the integration of the Congo into the global economy. Since the first contact with Europeans, it has experienced a vicious cycle of exploitation that promotes violence and is driven by internal power relations but even more so by world market demands. While the object of these demands (slaves, ivory, rubber, copper, diamonds, coltan) changed over the centuries and decades, the structures of dependence and the patterns of exploitation did not change fundamentally. Hence, every effort to sustainably improve the economic, social and political conditions in the Congo, which are among the most devastating in the world, must take this heritage into account.


http://ideas.repec.org/p/inn/wpaper/2007-31.html
« Last Edit: April 03, 2009, 04:21:41 PM by Molly »

Offline Molly

  • Gold
  • *
  • Posts: 11265
Re: New World Order - What Does It Mean?
« Reply #142 on: April 03, 2009, 04:32:20 PM »
How the IMF Contributes to Rising TB Rates
The Scourge of the IMF
By ROBERT WEISSMAN

Tuberculosis, a treatable disease, kills 1.7 million people a year worldwide.

TB incidence, according to the World Health Organization seems to be correlated to broad social factors, like access to clean water and sanitation, HIV incidence and national health expenditures.

A just published study in the journal PLoS (Public Library of Science) Medicine investigates the role of different possible explanatory factor: the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The researchers' study focuses on the period 1991 to 2003 for the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, a region for which there is robust data.

The results: The researchers concluded "that IMF economic reform programs are strongly associated with rises in tuberculosis mortality rates in post-communist Eastern European and FSU [former Soviet Union] countries, even after correcting for potential selection bias, tuberculosis surveillance infrastructure, levels of economic development, urbanization, and HIV/AIDS."

"We estimated an increase in tuberculosis mortality rates when countries participate in an IMF program, which was much greater than the reduction that would have been expected had the countries not participated in an IMF program. On the other hand, we estimated a decrease in tuberculosis mortality rates associated with exiting an IMF program."

In other words: When countries entered IMF programs, TB rates went up. When the programs ended and countries escaped from IMF influence, TB rates went down.

OK, but the region was in chaos after the fall of the Soviet Union. Economies crashed and per capita income plummeted. Crime rose, incarceration rates jumped, HIV spread. Aren't these the real factors behind rising TB rates?

Explains Sanjay Basu of Yale University, one of the study authors: "First of all, not all of these countries in this region were dependent on the former Soviet Union. Many of them actually had an increase in GDP after the fall of the former Soviet Union. Several were not part of the trading bloc. And in some of the key countries where TB rates rose, we actually saw an increase in economic growth. So economic downturns could not explain, as the WHO itself has stated, the trends of tuberculosis in that regions. Something else was going on."

"The reason we use such heavy statistics is precisely to factor in these other issues -- incarceration, HIV, changes to the economy, changes to the healthcare infrastructure. We found a statistically independent effect of the IMF. That's not to say that the IMF was the only cause of TB in this region. The economy, incarceration, HIV -- these are all very important, but those factors could not fully explain TB in the region."

The PLoS study found that participating in an IMF program correlated with increases in tuberculosis incidence of 13.9 percent and an increase in TB mortality rates of 16.6 percent. Basu says that, if the study results are valid, they suggest "we would have averted tens of thousands of deaths and hundreds of thousands of new cases" if countries in the region had never entered IMF programs.

The theory of the study authors is that IMF programs drive down healthcare spending, and this reduced investment in healthcare explains the rise in TB incidence and death. Basu emphasizes, correctly, that the issue is not so much the IMF directing countries to spend less on health. Rather, it imposes a set of policy constraints -- including overall limits on government spending, and needlessly low inflation targets -- that inevitably result in countries spending less on health.

There are always variations between regions, but there is nothing about the PLoS researchers' story that suggests things are any different in Africa, the region where the IMF now exerts the most influence.

http://www.counterpunch.org/weissman07262008.html

Offline Molly

  • Gold
  • *
  • Posts: 11265
Re: New World Order - What Does It Mean?
« Reply #143 on: April 03, 2009, 04:39:33 PM »
Babylon isn't fallen, Noname.

She's just getting warmed up.

Who knows what the IMF is and what they do?

Answer:  Nobody.



The International Monetary Fund (IMF) is an international organization that oversees the global financial system by following the macroeconomic policies of its member countries, in particular those with an impact on exchange rates and the balance of payments. It is an organization formed to stabilize international exchange rates and facilitate development.[2] It also offers financial and technical assistance to its members, making it an international lender of last resort. Its headquarters are located in Washington, D.C., USA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Monetary_Fund

martincisneros

  • Guest
Re: New World Order - What Does It Mean?
« Reply #144 on: April 03, 2009, 04:44:25 PM »
right, it's basically a bank

Offline Molly

  • Gold
  • *
  • Posts: 11265
Re: New World Order - What Does It Mean?
« Reply #145 on: April 03, 2009, 04:45:09 PM »
The current managing director of the IMF:
Dominique Strauss-Kahn
Dominique Strauss-Kahn, often referred to as DSK, (born 25 April 1949 in Neuilly-sur-Seine) is a French economist, lawyer, and politician, member of the Socialist Party (PS). He was selected as the new Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) on 28 September 2007.

A former Finance and Economy Minister in Lionel Jospin's "Plural Left" government, he belongs to the center-left wing of the PS. He sought the nomination in the primaries to the Socialist presidential candidacy for the 2007 election but was defeated by Ségolène Royal in November 2006.

DSK was also a Professor at the National Administration School (ENA), at the Paris Institute for Political Studies ("Sciences Po") and the HEC School of Management.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominique_Strauss-Kahn





"The phrase 'new world order' traces back at least as far as 1940, when author H.G. Wells used it as the title of a book about a socialist, unified, one-world government."






martincisneros

  • Guest
Re: New World Order - What Does It Mean?
« Reply #146 on: April 03, 2009, 04:49:42 PM »
Makes sense that their healthcare would have gone down, because member countries only tap into that resource when they're financially in the red.  When you're not making your budget, most people, including governments, aren't thinking about health insurance.  That's what those stats mean.  That's all that means.  They were financially in the red, they stopped paying for healthcare, but they did receive aide from IMF.

martincisneros

  • Guest
Re: New World Order - What Does It Mean?
« Reply #147 on: April 03, 2009, 04:51:19 PM »
Those are individual government decisions and not the policy of IMF.  It's how the governments decided to spend the loans, or how thin the loans were to where they couldn't pay for anything beyond salaries since most governments are over inflated with employees.

Offline Molly

  • Gold
  • *
  • Posts: 11265
Re: New World Order - What Does It Mean?
« Reply #148 on: April 03, 2009, 04:54:25 PM »
Plunder and Profit
The IMF and WorId Bank continue to push privatization,
in spite of its massive failures.

by David Moberg
In These Times magazine, March 2004


In September 1999, Bolivian officials signed a 40-year contract with a private company named Aguas del Tunari to take over the municipal water system of Cochabamba, the country's third largest city. The company, largely owned by U.S. construction giant Bechtel, was the sole bidder for the contract, which guaranteed 15 percent annual profit in inflation-indexed dollars.

With the encouragement of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank, since 1985 Bolivian governments have sold national public assets to foreign investors and opened their markets to global trade. Despite the promise of development by following the "Washington consensus" of economic liberalization, it remained the poorest country in Latin America. But World Bank officials still insisted that Bolivia privatize Cochabamba's water utility and that residents, no matter how poor, pay full cost of the service without subsidy.

Two months after Bechtel's subsidiary took over, it roughly tripled local water rates, telling the poor they could pay one-fourth of their income for water or have the spigot shut o£ There were massive protests for several months until the contract was cancelled.

But a few months after signing the contract, Bechtel surreptitiously added new investors and reincorporated its subsidiary in the Netherlands. When it lost the contract, Bechtel sued Bolivia-under terms of a bilateral investment treaty between Bolivia and Netherlands-for damages of at least $25 million for loss of profits it might have made, even though it had invested less than $1 million. Last month, the Bolivian government argued in secret hearings before an investment tribunal affiliated with the World Bank that the treaty doesn't apply, partly because Dutch nationals never controlled Aguas del Tunari.

Cochabamba remains a celebrated battle ground in the intensifying worldwide dispute over the privatization of public services, from water and electrical utilities to education, healthcare and pensions. Its ongoing legal struggle reflects the ways in which poor countries often are pressured to privatize a wide range of public assets and services, and then locked into failed policies by international trade agreements.

Free Market Faith
Rich countries-working through international institutions like the World Bank-rarely help poor countries modernize and strengthen public services. But they often push them to privatize and commercialize public services, a move that they themselves would never make. Leading the tide of globalization, international financial institutions are aggressively and undemocratically promoting an ideological agenda of privatization and commercialization.
"The IMF, the World Bank and the World Trade Organization care about dismantling the state,' says Nancy Alexander, director of the Citizens' Network on Essential Services (CNES), a research and advocacy group. "They're faith-based organizations. They don't care who dismantles the state"

International financial institutions claim that such reforms help reduce poverty, but they often simply are. promoting the interests of multinational corporations in water, energy, telecommunications and other industries. Multinational corporate investment in privatization peaked in the late '90s, and many firms have since pulled back in response to protests or financial difficulties. So the World Bank, IMF and related institutions are increasingly offering financial aid, subsidies and guarantees to private multinationals to induce them to privatize.

"In the end, it's not an argument about economics. That's not the bottom line,' says Doug Hellinger, executive director of the Development Group on Alternative Policies, which is critical of the IMF and World Bank. "It's ideological, but it's also about giving access to companies on terrific terms. It's really about the IMF representing its northern countries and their corporations"

The World Bank theoretically acknowledges a role for the public sector, but in practice it has pushed privatization since the mid-'80s. This year's budget for water privatization, for example, is triple last year's, and over the past decade the portion of the bank's lending for water projects tied to privatization soared. In 2002 it adopted a strategy that emphasized development led by private corporations, and it works closely with the WTO to impose on poor countries the kinds of pro-corporate policies other countries have the freedom to negotiate.

Indirect Pressure
When countries suffer from financial crises or crippling debt, the IMF and World Bank often insist on privatization of state-owned enterprises, utilities and social services as a condition for financial help. But sometimes, Alexander explains, they push privatization indirectly. For example, they typically require cuts in government budgets, public services and aid to localities. They press for decentralization of public services, dismantling of utilities into smaller units, assessment of market prices for services and elimination of cross-subsidies that may reduce costs for the poor. Financially squeezed by these policies, municipalities may be tempted to privatize the decentralized services. The multinationals then cherry pick the most profitable pieces serving more affluent urban areas, leaving the government responsible for poor and unprofitable rural areas or urban shantytowns.

While some public services in developing countries work well, others are deeply flawed. But as CNES economist Tim Kessler argues, the World Bank acts as if the only alternative is privatization, not improving public services with outside financial and technical aid and with greater citizen accountability. In any case, privatized utilities need strong public regulation, which is difficult and expensive to do well. Paradoxically, weak and corrupt governments, whose public services could most benefit from reform, are least able to regulate privatized systems. Often they sell public goods on the cheap to cronies and patrons, making privatization really "briberization," says former World Bank chief economist Joseph Stiglitz.

Management Matters
Advocates argue that privatization increases efficiency and investment, fosters competition, shrinks deficits and improves services. There are many instances, such as in Chile, where privatized public enterprises increased efficiency and improved service. But in developed countries public utilities generally are as efficient as or better than private.

In developing countries, there also are countless horror stories of price gouging, poor service, meager investment and discrimination against the poor from every continent and in every arena of privatization. For example, Suez, one of two multinationals controlling at least 7o percent of the world's private water contracts, recently lost or abandoned water operations in Argentina, Philippines and Puerto Rico once hailed as model successes. A newly released study by a network of citizens groups that collaborated with the World Bank, Structural Adjustment: The SAPRI Report," concluded that privatization did not accelerate growth and the form of ownership did not determine efficiency of services as much as management policy.

Despite the failures of privatization, the World Bank and IMF have not shifted their focus to strengthening and democratizing public services. Instead, they are increasing funding to subsidize, to commercially guarantee and to promote privatization (as head of an expert panel on water infrastructure sponsored by the World Bank and multinational water companies). Former IMF managing director Michel Camdessus who recommended last year that there should be more subsidies and guarantees for water privatizers and that the bank should deal more with state and local governments (which typically are less savvy in negotiating with giant multinationals than national governments).

At the WTO, the richer countries want to include more services under the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), potentially opening historically public functions to competition that would benefit multinational service corporations and would indirectly privatize. Once a service is opened under GATS, countries cannot reverse course-for example, make healthcare an exclusively public service-without paying every country that claims it lost a trade opportunity GATS rules also would severely restrict domestic regulation of service industries.

If the rich countries, along with the World Bank, IMF and WTO, persist in their current privatizing strategies, Cochabamba may turn out to have been an early skirmish in a much wider war.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/IMF_WB/Plunder_Profit_IMF_WB.html

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
« Last Edit: April 03, 2009, 04:56:21 PM by Molly »

martincisneros

  • Guest
Re: New World Order - What Does It Mean?
« Reply #149 on: April 03, 2009, 04:56:00 PM »
Just gets back to what I've been saying about the Body of Christ's responsibility to take over and start running these things, and to be the ones that are funding all of the countries of the world when they're in these tight spots.  Isaiah 61:6 says that we're supposed to be boasting ourselves in the riches of the nations.